Social Partnership’: Promoting Shared Interests for Resource and Infrastructure Development
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Social partnerships have become a key element for energy and related infrastructure development. Failure to secure social acceptance increases the risks of litigation of a project or political conflict that creates significant barriers to economically viable resource development. The central challenge facing governments, businesses, and affected communities is how to bridge the gap between regulatory requirements ostensibly intended to serve the broader public interest, and competing views of “legitimacy” based on the accommodation of diverse social and political interests and values. This challenge may be greatest in dealing with First Nations, especially the growing but often loosely defined legal recognition of rights to consultation and accommodation of their ways of life and uses of traditional lands. In this Commentary, the authors examine case studies of successful community engagement in different settings involving resource sector firms, local and provincial governments, Aboriginal communities, and other local stakeholders. The authors examine a number of approaches to addressing local concerns. Those are: • Building Multi-Stakeholder Groups and Networks: Local or regional industry working groups including industry representatives provide a valuable means of strengthening connections with local governments and communities, public health authorities and local emergency response professionals in order to reduce risks, address community concerns, and respond more effectively to occasional emergencies. The group process appears to complement the activities of regulators such as the Alberta Energy Regulator. • Multi-Jurisdictional Projects: Multi-jurisdictional initiatives require parallel processes that respect legal, institutional and social differences in various jurisdictions. The authors find successful examples of formal multi-stakeholder advisory processes in British Columbia that could inform future negotiations elsewhere. • Engaging First Nations and Aboriginal Communities: One major factor common to many past disputes with First Nations has been a frustrated community leadership. Consultation prior to detailed project design or approval has become a central factor influencing First Nations’ acceptance of resource projects affecting traditional lands. The energy sector’s involvement in hundreds of diverse communities points to a number of lessons. Provincial and federal governments and regulators can do more by promoting multi-stakeholder groups and disclosing more about emergency response plans. Industry bodies should promote cultures of continuous improvement reinforced by benchmarks and internal reporting requirements that demonstrate adherence. Energy firms themselves can look to international certifications of their processes of social partnership.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle